Obama

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's not necessarily a bad thing insurers stop selling children's only insurance. that only means they're expanding their insurance pool, so they can cover everyone. insurance companies are known for cherry picking who to cover.
what is essentially being said is "insurance companies have stopped cherry picking healthy children to cover"

[dairygirl4u2c]

alright there's different kinds of rights. there's rights protected by the government, and there's rights not protected by the government.
i dont see any magical lines that say how free speech is protected, or things typically thought of as rights, but the right to live to sustain oneself is not protected. at least as far as what should be protected. and i would bolster my argument of this being that sort of right, by all that stuff i keep hounding on by the popes, and the eerie silence by those who never (explictly address) reconcile the liberal or conservative popes.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1285938596' post='2177253']
i was mostly just making a point. canada drugs cost at least a third of what htey cost here. walmart drugs are only a few cents, literally, that's how they can sell them so cheap. even canada and most drugs... the insurance companies make money merely because they can, because that's what demand dictates. that does't represent that actual cost to make the drug etc. maybe it's a few dollars, for some drugs... but you see my point, for most drugs.
they may have to pay people to make the drugs etc, but the actual cost is very low.
they spend like less than 15% on research and development. they spend a whole lot more on advertising and lobbying. the government is usually who subsidizes the creation of new drugs, and they pass the profit onto medicine companies. to say they need more money to create more drugs or to sustain themselves is mostly a facade.
[/quote]


we have to understand that people who are in insurance and medicine industries, choose to let people die. it'd be very cheap for them to let them live. they probably decide it's better to not help people out, cause then people wont do what it takes to pay them. and then the facade i talked about to justify their position, if they need a rationalization. some probably dont care.
im not saying it's government's responsinility to make them fork over cheap pills. newer technology isn't 'basic health care' in my book, so it's not something people should be entitled to.
but, we should make the market codtions such that we can get them as cheap as possible, while of course protecting pattent rights and other business rights.
canadian medicine for the poor.... all the way. (at least let the government get the floopy out of hte way here, we dont need the trade barrier to protect the medicine companies, at least in this case. probably, at all, though

[dairygirl4u2c]

you start to see the problem.
"we should trade barrier canadian drug sales, or else the american companies who make the drugs won't sell to canada, or wont be able to do research and development or wont be able ot make a profit"
of course, we have patent laws to protect companies, so what's the use of patent laws if people can just have canada distribute to everyone, as a middleman? so of course the republican croonies say "let's protect the drug companies", instead of following their free market principles to the tee.
in reality, if all drug sales were done by canada, they'd still turn profit. (canada costs a third per medicine. so if we cut their profits by a third, we get to 33% current revenue. and that'd mean their research adn developmen would be a whole lot higher, like fifty percent of their revenue. that's where it should be to begin with, if we're going to be complaining about it such as to derpive the market- mayube not)
in anycase, even if we generally banned canadian markets, but allowed it for poorer people, they surely be able to cut a profit. (socialized medicine accounts for a third of healthcare. the actual percentage is much lower for medicine iie pills itself. but if we assumed a third taken off (which would be less, cause that's money they're earning), we'd get to 66% revenue levels, a third for reearch and development)
instead of making sensible policy to protect people, we're making policies that protect drug companies when they dont need protected, and not even following free market principles in the process.
i wonder how the coookie cutter conservatives here would address this issue? side with the drug company when it does't need protected while denying the little guy and denying their free market fundamentals..... or side with the little guy, balancing everyone's interests, and the free market, in the process?
my guess is that most would take an issue like this, that complicates their simple little world too much, and avoid it liike the plaque.

Edited October 1, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]side with the drug company when it does't need protected while denying the little guy and denying their free market fundamentals[/quote]
and not only that. those republican croonies, andor cookie cutter conservatives, would be helping delpete our budget and run up taxes on people and put us in debt and would cause medicaid and medicare to spend on pills for certain people at crazy costs. (i know of a guy, who gets 20k per year for pills via uncle sam. not that he should be able to, but also not that he shouldnt be able to get it from canada, or something) they're sacraficing everything to 'protect' drug companies that dont need protected.
good job republican croonies and cookie cutter conservatives, kudos to you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]in anycase, even if we generally banned canadian markets, but allowed it for poorer people, they surely be able to cut a profit. (socialized medicine accounts for a third of healthcare. the actual percentage is much lower for medicine iie pills itself. but if we assumed a third taken off (which would be less, cause that's money they're earning), we'd get to 66% revenue levels, a third for reearch and development)[/quote]

and then we have a problem. do we just make drug companies give cheaper medicine, so we can cut out the middle man of canada, or something? even though there's sensible solutions, this would get run into 'we cant be socialist', even though we're not even promoting the freemarket or doing things that make sense. and it'd just look weird to the average joe. so we end up with an overbroad law that bans all canadian drugs, instead of sensible policy, least certain republicans have to think for a second or two.
kudos republicans, kudos.

[Norseman82]

another:

[url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop"]McDonald's May Drop Health Plan [/url]

Edited October 1, 2010 by Norseman82

[dairygirl4u2c]

mcdoalds makes a lot of money on their mini med plans. they insure healthy people, and dont have much to pay in actual health costs. that's why they're not meeting the 80% quota. ideally, insurance compaies should be paying at least 80% on healht care, and if they aren't they're not being as effective as they could be with covering people- they're basking in profits.
also, those who get out of the mcdonald's plan, will get onto other plans, as promtoed and required by the new law.
so it's not the end of the world that mcdonalds is dropping the insurance.
it's not a good thing, though, that the plans the people will get into, will be a lot more expensive. sure, they'll be better coverage, but it's overkill for most of the workers at that age etc. hopefully, or at least ideally-- there will be insurance providers who get similar plans to the workers, and they'll pay a similar amount, with similar coverage- a company that' willing to get their actual costs up to 80%.
see, mcdonalds isn't in the business of providing health insurance. but, if they can rake in the money they pay their workers in temrs of insurance they wont use for the most part.... that's a good business move.

i dont understand why they're dropping it now and not at 2014 when the law takes effect. is there a provision that says they have to meet the 80% quota now?

but it's not the end of hte world that mcdonalds is dropping hte insurance. they're just acknowleding that they've always been in the business of making money at a maximum rate, not covering people with health insurance and not making as much as they could. someone else will be happy to make that profit, and provide that service.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also notice how mcdonalds didnt disclose how much they do spend on actual health care, just that they dont meet the quota. they're hiding the truth, and at worst trying to make things appear not as they really are by dropping the insurance.

[dairygirl4u2c]

oih yeah the article says there is a provision that says they have to meet that quota now.
it's not not the end of the world, but. not necessarily the best way to transition into these things. exemptions etc

Edited October 2, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Myth: Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending.

Fact: Middle-class entitlements are to blame for runaway government spending.



Summary

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans.



Argument

One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1)

Comparing the size of federal AFDC to other federal programs puts a great deal in perspective:

Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas (1993) (2)

Agency $ billions
--------------------------
AFDC 12
Medicaid 76
Medicare 131
Defense 281
Social Security 305
To rescue their point that welfare is responsible for runaway government spending, conservatives must expand the definition of "welfare" as much as possible. Unfortunately, AFDC and food stamps are by far the largest welfare programs for the poor, and any expanded definition is going to include popular middle class programs like Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, and pensions for needy veterans. In other words, conservatives must villainize the middle class if they wish to villainize the poor. But for the moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and accompany their line of argument to the end:

Many conservatives expand "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return. The Library of Congress provides a list of such programs (which will be included in the appendix below). In 1992, these expenditures for combined federal, state and local governments came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of the combined budget of $2,487 billion. (3) Keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc.

If conservatives are still frustrated that this does not prove their point that government is drowning in welfare, then they might try expanding "welfare" to include all social welfare expenditures, which include every entitlement program under the sun, including Social Security and Medicare. (Forget, for the moment, that the middle class is defending these programs with bazookas and rocket launchers.) In 1992, these expenditures comprised 62 percent of combined government outlays. However, at least at the federal level, these benefits are paid to literally every income bracket, and in a remarkably proportional manner:

Distributions of Federal Funds by Income Bracket, Compared to Distribution
of Households by Income Bracket, CY 1991 (4)

Percent of Percent of
Income all households all benefits
-----------------------------------------------
Under $10,000 16.4% 17.8%
$10,000 - $20,000 18.8 21.7
$20,000 - $30,000 17.0 17.2
$30,000 - $50,000 23.6 21.8
$50,000 - $100,000 19.1 15.9
Over $100,000 5.1 5.6
As the above chart shows, the conservative's absurdism is now complete; he has declared class war against every member of society. But at least he has proven his point. [/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

i determiend the above quote, just be inference. i merely looked at the federal budget, and then realized that 'welfare' is only a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
http://www.federalbudget.com/
and then i looked it up, and everything verifiiese what i concluded. see above quote.
yet, that's what you usually hear republicans arguing about. sure, it's got the public pop appeal, but it's health and social security you should hear them arguing about, which they can't and won't do, at least as much. they're arguing about beans, they aren't arguing about anything that will fix anything.
we face big people problems in our country, yet the republicans have no solutions, other than to do away with entitlements. they'd have to do away with even the current entitlements to make it work, not just future promises. in other worrds, they have no solutions. they offer other proposals that do't make sense. the only way the problem is going to be fixed, is by us printing money to deal with the problems, cause we could never muster a tax increase. which would be necessary.
the only way to deal with our budget, is to continue printing money. not that that's necessarily bad, dpending on how i t's done.

an important point. single payer systems pay 10% of their GDP, we pay 17% as a nation on healthcare. an important point beyond that one that i keep talking abou stilt --- that 7% represents a trillion dollars. i heard bill clinton quote that, and just think about the GDP and savings.... our GDP is 13 trillion. that could easily pay for our national debt, within a reasonable time.
sure, though, we'd have to increase taxes to get the revenue from those savings.
and even if we got that revenue, we'd probably stil have to increase taxes.
none of this is going to happen, so to solve the stale mate, theyh'll increase printing money.
(not that it's necessarily bad to increase printing money. if we print money for rich people or to 'do things' and it doesn't get into the hands of consumers much, it won't cause much real inflation on things for consumers, or generallly, much. it just accomplishes things and makes some small amount of people rich

Edited October 2, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

but the bottomline can't be printing money. the problems are too big for that. and, we would start printing money and giving it to consumers via social security etc, causing inflation etc.
we will need to increase taxes, and/or cut entitlements at least somewhat, at least for the rich.
and we should also reform current laws, so future entitlements either dont exist or are mitigated in their severity.
the bottomline then is smart policy. republicans have offered no solutions. at best, i'd hope they'll be the one to say 'let's cut entitlements' cause popular opinion can understand the need, and tehy're the party to do it.
maybe who reforms entitlement laws is up for grabs... republicans are known as the fiscally responsibel ones, but democrats often are the ones who have to be responsible and accomplish something. republicans are often out of touch with reality. id hope that the sensible republicans would see what im writing, things like this, and convince each other to create sensible policy. this shouldnt be a partisian topic. and it doesn't need to be
republicans need to pony up and offer solutions. otherwise we'll have democrats like obama, who say the only solution is to increase taxes. really, that's not so unreasonable. the older generation has borrowed agaisnt their kids, and didn't pay their bills. now that they're getting older, they need to start paying for it, the ones who still pay taxes. and social security isn't so bad, it provides most iwth just a modest income-- the only problem would be if they end ujp getting more on aggregate than they put in. in that case, they need to adjust pay outs too, if possible to expand how much they'd get over a longer period.
anyways, ss isn't inherently bad. it fixes what would otherwise be an emergency, an exigency, all the old people who wouldnt be abel or wouldnt save for retirement. so the bottomline, is that we need good policy, and republicans havent been stepping up, and i wouldnt be surpirsed if they dont.

Edited October 2, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]More Americans Tapping Into Entitlement Programs Swells Budget Deficit
By Don Miller, Associate Editor, Money Morning
As many U.S. citizens continue to rail against the ballooning budget deficit, the reality is that most Americans are unwilling to swallow the bitter pill it will take to tame it.

Perhaps that's because nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.

At the same time, the number of American households not paying federal income taxes has grown to an estimated 45% in 2010, up from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization.

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

As recently as the early 1980s, about 30% of Americans lived in households in which an individual was receiving Social Security, subsidized housing, jobless benefits or other government-provided benefits. By the third quarter of 2008, 44% of the public lived in such homes.

And that number has undoubtedly increased as the recession has hammered jobs and household incomes. Some 41.3 million people were on food stamps as of June 2010 up 45% from June 2008.

With unemployment high and federal jobless benefits now available for up to 99 weeks, 9.7 million unemployed workers were receiving checks in late August 2010, more than twice as many as the 4.2 million in August 2008.

The baby-boom generation, those born between 1946 and 1964, will continue to add to the ranks of Americans receiving government benefits. Today, an estimated 47.4 million people are enrolled in Medicare, up 38% from 1990. By 2030, the number is projected to be 80.4 million.

Entitlements Balloon Federal Deficit

The cost of these programs is quickly adding up.

Payments to individuals - a budget category that includes all federal benefit programs plus retirement benefits for federal workers - will cost $2.4 trillion this year, up 79%, from a decade earlier adjusted for inflation, The Journal reported. That's over 64% of all federal outlays, the highest on record for the 70 years the government has been tracking it. The figure was 46.7% in 1990 and 26.2% in 1960.

All this entitlement spending has punched a hole in the government budget and ballooned the federal deficit to dizzying heights.

The depth of the budget problem was underscored last week, when the Treasury reported that the government ran a $1.26 trillion deficit for the first 11 months of the fiscal year, on pace to be the second-biggest on record.

And the future looks even worse. For the period from 2011 to 2020, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts a budget deficit of $6.047 trillion, while the Obama administration projects a shortfall of $8.532 trillion.

The lowest projected deficit in the next decade is a $706 billion shortfall forecast for the fiscal year that ends in September 2014. That doesn't sound too bad in the context of the 2009-2011 figures, but it's almost $300 billion larger than the highest federal-budget deficit in human history before 2009.

And even that number is misleading. The federal government's Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) financial statements show the actual annual fiscal deficit careening wildly out of control.

Including the annual changes in the present value of off-the-books liabilities, including Social Security and Medicare, the annual 2008 deficit was $5.1 trillion dollars. The 2009 actual shortfall likely was around $8.8 trillion, instead of the official cash-based $1.417 trillion, according to Shadowstats.com.

Despite occasional bouts of belt-tightening in Washington and bursts of discussion about restraining big government, the trend toward more Americans receiving government benefits of one sort or another has continued for more than 70 years-and shows no sign of abating.

Medicare and Social Security - The Untouchable "Third Rails"

An ingredient in any credible deficit-reduction program would require cutting spending on Medicare and Social Security -- by far the costliest and most perplexing of entitlement programs.

Frequently called "the third rail of American politics" - touch it and you die - social security reform is an issue that prompts heated debates among its supporters and detractors. Although Social Security has been changed a number of times since its inception in 1935, nothing has kept the cost from continuing to creep upwards.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the CBO. According to the Social Security Board of Trustees, by 2037 the program's trust funds will be depleted.

Some say that means the problem is still years away. But others think the real problem is now, since the government -- already heavily in debt -- will have to borrow more money starting this decade to pay back the Social Security trust fund unless it cuts spending and raises taxes.

Solutions range from decreasing benefits to raising the retirement age, to increasing the payroll tax.

But while there's a long list of answers, the political will to implement them has been missing.

"Everyone knows what needs to be done, but no one wants to do it, " Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan, grassroots deficit watchdog group told CNNMoney.com.

Meanwhile, the White House has promised America's new health reform law will generate $575 billion in Medicare cost savings over the next decade, allowing the program to survive until 2029.

But part of those savings will come from reduced "overpayments" to Medicare Advantage, a system that allows Medicare recipients to receive benefits via private health insurance providers. The savings associated with Medicare Advantage efficiencies is expected to rise to $145 billion by 2019.

But this change could prove extremely costly to retirees because most seniors on Medicare Advantage don't have so-called Medigap policies, which pay the "gaps" in traditional Medicare coverage such as hospital deductibles and doctor co-payments.

The change will force many seniors to switch from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare where "they will pay much higher premiums than they ever imagined possible for Medigap insurance" according to Joseph Antos, a health care scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The new law also imposes about a half-percentage-point cut every year in the increases in Medicare payment rates for hospitals and other institutional providers. Over time, the compounding effect of the cuts will be so large that 15% of the nation's hospitals would have to stop seeing Medicare patients Antos told Daily Finance.

One Congressman's Plan for Change

Cutting federal benefits while the economy is still weak would be a mistake, some analysts say, because it could hinder recovery by giving consumers less money to spend.

But the crushing effect of entitlement programs on the federal budget means they need to be fundamentally redesigned, according to U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI.

His proposed bill, "Roadmap for America's Future," calls for reducing the federal deficit and debt by partly privatizing and trimming Social Security and Medicare, freezing most government programs and instituting a simplified, two-tier tax system that would cut taxes for the rich.

Ryan proposes to freeze nondefense discretionary spending--15% of the budget--for ten years. His tax plan would eliminate itemized deductions and set rates at 10% for the first $50,000 of income on an individual return and 25% for income above that and replace the corporate income tax with an 8.5% business consumption tax.

He would wipe out ObamaCare and replace it with a voucher-based system in which adults get a $2,300 refundable tax credit to pay for health care. Similarly, Medicare recipients under 55 today would, on retirement, get vouchers to buy private insurance. He would raise the eligibility age for both Social Security and Medicare to 69 and 70, respectively, by the end of this century.

"People see that this debt crisis is real and right in front of us," says Ryan. They're paying attention to him, he adds, "because, unfortunately, I'm the only person who's put a plan out there."

Only 14 GOP members in Congress have endorsed the plan. In other words, it has no chance of becoming law in its present form.

"My goal was to get other plans launched, to ignite and start a debate," Ryan says.

The congressman blames the inability to put his ideas in motion on "the crowd that runs Washington now." But if Republicans win convincingly in November's congressional elections, Ryan's strategy will be to win over moderate Democrats and, if the GOP takes control of the House, to force change.

"I see dozens of reinforcements coming in the fall to help us take this fiscal situation seriously so we can get this thing fixed," he told Forbes.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_exmyPotKSO8/SdZScs4a_QI/AAAAAAAAACI/11A6bkjuoEc/s1600/HealthCare_3a_t.jpg[/img]

Edited October 3, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c